My customers, particularly those that visit Scotland with me, often ask about Mountain Hares and Hen Harriers. Both species are in conflict with human occupation. Over the many years I’ve been visiting the Highlands I’ve seen the numbers of both decline dramatically. Both species occupy the same moorland habitat as Red Grouse. In the past a great deal of effort has been put into eliminating any threat to Red Grouse shoots; money is the driving factor. Profits from Grouse shoots can be substantial.
Hen Harriers will take the grouse. Mountain Hares help spread a tick which will carry a virus that can have detrimental effects on grouse numbers.
It’s always been illegal to shoot Harriers and it’s now illegal in Scotland to shoot Mountain Hares without a licence. However it still happens.
Even the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) admit “Despite evidence that illegal killing does occur, and at a large enough scale to significantly impact numbers of some birds of prey….”
They however caveat the situation by further stating “… the extent to which they are illegally killed and the number remaining (to determine the accuracy of the claim that all predators are killed) is not known.”
I don’t think I’ve ever explored an organisations website that is so full of crap. Take a look for yourself https://www.gwct.org.uk/. There’s even a separate site headed ‘What the science says – the UK’s conservation fact checking resource’ run by the GWCT that purports to be based on science fact. However, it defends at all costs, what we’ll call ‘game farming’.
Even the recent article on Capercaillie majors on the cause of the decline in this rather special bird as the increase in Pine Marten numbers and yet even within the article they state ‘Recently modelled data suggest that in the absence of deer fencing, capercaillie numbers would be 16% higher and the risk of extinction within the next 50 years would fall from 95% to just 3%’.
It’s worth pointing out these two species have developed alongside one another for millennia.
Very poorly written articles that don’t conclude correctly based on the ‘evidence’ they present.
